Energy: Fees and Charges

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what recent meetings his Department has held with energy companies to discuss the premium paid by pre-payment customers for gas and electricity; and what progress has been made in encouraging energy suppliers to reduce this premium.

Malcolm Wicks: I last met representatives of the six the largest suppliers and Ofgem on 31 January, with the Secretary of State for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We both expressed strongly our growing concern about rising tariff differentials.
	Gas and electricity suppliers have been considering their tariff structures and two companies have equalised their standard credit and prepayment prices for electricity, while one offers prepayment customers a lower price for both fuels than that paid by standard credit customers.
	The Government will continue to work with Ofgem to ensure we do all we can to encourage customers to switch to the best payment method. There are considerable benefits to be had—customers changing supplier and payment type (eg credit to direct debit) should see an average saving of around £130, however, andean make larger savings of up to £200.

Fuel Poverty

Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform if he will make a statement on progress towards the Government's target of eradicating fuel poverty  (a) in England by 2010 and  (b) in the UK by 2016 to 2018.

Malcolm Wicks: We have been successful in reducing fuel poverty between 1996 and 2005 by 3 million vulnerable households across the UK.
	However, as indicated in our most recent UK Fuel Poverty Strategy 5(th) Annual Progress Report www.berr.gov.uk/energy/fuel-poverty/strategy/index.html energy prices since 2003 have had an impact on households in fuel poverty.
	The Government remain committed to our fuel poverty targets working together with those key stakeholders including the energy suppliers, voluntary groups, energy efficiency scheme managers and campaigning organisations to ensure that appropriate progress is made.

Furniture

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what support his Department has provided to  (a) the furniture manufacturing industry and  (b) its supply chain in the last 10 years; which elements of such support has been provided on a regional basis; and what plans he has to fund future assistance to the (i) furniture manufacturing sector and (ii) its supply chain to support its global competitiveness.

Malcolm Wicks: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to her earlier question on 11 December 2006,  Official Report, column 805W, which detailed the financial support to the furniture sector since 1990. Since that time we have continued to provide funding towards UK First, the furniture industry forum, and will continue to do so until March 2008. UK Trade and Investment continues to help the furniture sector succeed overseas with support under the Tradeshow Access Programme and the sector forms a component of the strategy to market the UK's creative industries overseas. In the regions Advantage West Midlands has set up Furniture West Midlands to support the sector and Furniture Link, managed by Business Link London, is helping furniture companies to develop business opportunities. In addition the Government Businesslink service offers a range of support solutions to companies in all sectors. Support is also available through the Manufacturing Advisory Service and under the Technology Programme if the industry can address the technology priorities identified by the Technology Strategy Board.

Low Carbon Buildings Programme

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what plans he has for the future of the low carbon buildings programme; and if he will make a statement.

Malcolm Wicks: From a total budget of £86 million made available through the low carbon buildings programme, we have committed approximately £26 million to 5,700 household, community group, public, private and charitable sector projects to date.
	We are currently exploring options for raising awareness in the programme and encouraging uptake in grants, in consultation with stakeholders, including industry representatives.
	Grants of up to £2,500 per property remain available to households, and grants of up to £1 million remain available to public sector organisations and charitable bodies through to 2009. Further details the household stream are available at:
	www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk
	and detailed information regarding grants available to public sector organisations and charitable bodies are available at:
	http://www.lowcarbonbuildingsphase2.org.uk/
	Beyond LCBP, electricity technologies are supported by the renewables obligation (RO) and CERT will apply to microgeneration technologies from April 2008. More significant changes to the RO are planned for 2009 including differentiated levels of support to different technologies in order to encourage a larger contribution from emerging renewable technologies. This change will benefit microgenerators (i.e. generators under 50 kW), including all PV. We will also be looking at support for microgeneration as part of the renewable energy strategy.

Sellafield

Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what the design capacity of the Sellafield Mox Plant is; and how many tonnes of mixed oxide fuel were manufactured at the plant in each year since it was opened.

Malcolm Wicks: I am advised by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that the original design capacity for the Sellafield Mox Plant, based on largely unproven technology, was 120tHM (tonnes heavy metal) per annum. From assessments during uranium commissioning in 2001, this was revised to 72tHM. Justification of the plant was approved in October 2001. Output as finished fuel assemblies (t/HM) has been as follows:
	
		
			   tHM 
			 2002-03 0.0 
			 2003-04 0.0 
			 2004-05 0.3 
			 2005-06 2.3 
			 2006-07 2.6

Sports: Finance

Jeremy Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how much has been drawn down by each local education authority from New Opportunities for PE and sport funding; and how many projects have received funding.

Gerry Sutcliffe: holding answer 21 February 2008
	 I have been asked to reply.
	In England, £495.16 million of the £581.25 million of funding available for the New Opportunities for PE and Sport (NOPES) has been allocated direct to Local authorities. This has helped them to support 1,365 capital projects, developing or refurbishing over 2,300 sports facilities. The following table shows NOPES allocations by local authority; draw-down by local authorities against those allocations; and the numbers of projects and sports facilities supported.
	
		
			  Local education authority  Total allocation (£)  Total draw-down to date (£)  Total capital projects  Number of sports facilities 
			 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 3,993,000 2,231,938 2 2 
			 Bath and North East Somerset Council 945,000 945,000 5 5 
			 Bedfordshire County Council 2,571,000 1,328,662 14 20 
			 Birmingham City Council 16,919,000 10,836,893 41 42 
			 Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council 2,562,000 1,245,466 6 6 
			 Blackpool Council 2,362,000 1,660,240 18 18 
			 Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 3,475,000 2,774,241 33 36 
			 Borough of Poole 630,000 606,584 6 6 
			 Bournemouth Borough Council 1,283,000 1,027,538 4 17 
			 Bracknell Forest Borough Council 530,000 230,684 4 4 
			 Bradford Metropolitan District Council 8,035,000 6,978,542 28 28 
			 Brighton and Hove City Council 2,246,000 2,246,000 2 3 
			 Bristol City Council 4,478,000 4,187,469 7 7 
			 Buckinghamshire County Council 2,599,000 2,247,303 16 16 
			 Bury Metropolitan Borough Council 1,704,000 1,480,014 8 8 
			 Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council 2,003,000 1,912,686 9 9 
			 Cambridgeshire County Council 2,879,000 2,601,251 17 17 
			 Cheshire County Council 4,816,000 4,587,194 12 61 
			 City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council 5,000,000 4,160,555 6 6 
			 Cornwall County Council 4,518,000 4,071,482 9 9 
			 Corporation of London 53,000 53,000 1 1 
			 Coventry City Council 4,529,000 3,622,876 6 6 
			 Cumbria County Council 4,607,000 3,377,380 5 5 
			 Darlington Borough Council 1,075,000 1,074,819 10 10 
			 Derby City Council 2,712,000 1,784,268 5 5 
			 Derbyshire County Council 6,097,000 4,753,598 31 31 
			 Devon County Council 3,953,000 2,591,586 16 62 
			 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 4,746,000 4,541,912 8 8 
			 Dorset County Council 2,082,000 1,604,843 10 12 
			 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council 3,244,000 2,593,262 13 13 
			 Durham County Council 7,335,000 6,936,452 5 5 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire Council 2,196,000 1,648,634 4 4 
			 East Sussex County Council 3,727,000 3,277,500 10 10 
			 Essex County Council 9,068,000 6,615,717 18 18 
			 Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council 3,057,000 2,867,504 4 4 
			 Gloucestershire County Council 3,663,000 3,233,633 13 39 
			 Greenwich Council 3,886,000 2,972,934 8 8 
			 Halton Borough Council 2,337,000 1,826,131 8 8 
			 Hampshire County Council 6,634,000 6,429,663 10 10 
			 Harrow Council 1,029,000 932,532 3 3 
			 Hartlepool Borough Council 1,714,605 1,697,405 11 15 
			 Herefordshire Council 1,084,000 1,011,405 1 1 
			 Hertfordshire County Council 5,684,000 4,372,265 7 7 
			 Isle of Wight Council 1,371,000 1,182,883 5 49 
			 Isles of Scilly Council 25,000 25,000 1 5 
			 Kent County Council 10,437,000 6,690,182 22 39 
			 Kingston Upon Hull City Council 4,212,000 396,829 5 5 
			 Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council 4,821,000 4,248,644 6 33 
			 Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council 3,194,000 658,794 16 17 
			 Lancashire County Council 11,987,000 7,490,780 21 21 
			 Leeds City Council 7,712,000 6,516,315 5 28 
			 Leicester City Council 4,996,000 3,974,518 6 6 
			 Leicestershire County Council 3,350,000 2,906,581 14 14 
			 Lincolnshire County Council 4,987,000 4,729,427 4 4 
			 Liverpool City Council 9,217,000 8,625,007 11 12 
			 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 3,082,000 2,038,690 2 2 
			 London Borough of Barnet 1,776,000 945,042 5 5 
			 London Borough of Bexley 1,874,000 1,661,839 6 11 
			 London Borough of Brent 2,965,000 2,446,715 11 12 
			 London Borough of Bromley 1,906,000 1,891,493 13 15 
			 London Borough of Camden 2,460,000 2,455,457 7 7 
			 London Borough of Croydon 2,376,000 2,195,012 10 13 
			 London Borough of Ealing 2,978,000 1,246,998 11 25 
			 London Borough of Enfield 2,995,000 2,714,460 13 90 
			 London Borough of Hackney 4,259,000 1,830,378 9 9 
			 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham 1,510,000 1,488,431 13 89 
			 London Borough of Haringey 3,775,000 3,168,229 20 22 
			 London Borough of Havering 1,684,000 577,279 4 12 
			 London Borough of Hillingdon 1,403,000 1,039,751 6 7 
			 London Borough of Hounslow 1,573,000 1,397,621 16 16 
			 London Borough of Islington 3,796,000 996,577 8 10 
			 London Borough of Lambeth 4,362,000 1,625,494 20 21 
			 London Borough of Lewisham 3,817,000 2,299,595 8 8 
			 London Borough of Merton 903,000 903,000 3 4 
			 London Borough of Newham 5,425,000 1,813,272 5 5 
			 London Borough of Redbridge 2,131,000 1,920,973 1 1 
			 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames 899,000 891,741 12 28 
			 London Borough of Southwark 4,286,000 1,240,260 9 10 
			 London Borough of Sutton 1,176,000 1,108,195 3 3 
			 London Borough of Tower Hamlets 4,204,000 2,739,045 12 13 
			 London Borough of Waltham Forest 3,481,000 2,940,857 5 7 
			 London Borough of Wandsworth 1,448,000 1,262,870 5 5 
			 Luton Borough Council 2,008,000 1,977,999 8 11 
			 Manchester City Council 8,823,000 7,969,292 9 95 
			 Medway Council 2,165,000 1,310,672 5 13 
			 Metropolitan Borough of Wirral 4,448,000 4,315,945 5 6 
			 Middlesbrough Council 2,317,895 2,306,533 18 18 
			 Milton Keynes Council 1,455,000 1,375,462 5 5 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne City Council 4,338,000 2,740,442 4 4 
			 Norfolk County Council 6,358,000 5,649,285 14 64 
			 North East Lincolnshire Council 1,965,000 1,826,367 3 3 
			 North Lincolnshire Council 1,319,000 517,689 2 2 
			 North Somerset Council 1,170,000 992,135 4 4 
			 North Tyneside Council 2,364,000 2,341,500 7 11 
			 North Yorkshire County Council 3,421,000 3,313,647 19 20 
			 Northamptonshire County Council 5,034,000 4,333,042 17 18 
			 Northumberland County Council 2,972,000 1,762,748 6 7 
			 Nottingham City Council 5,080,000 5,036,841 10 10 
			 Nottinghamshire County Council 7,358,000 5,849,238 57 62 
			 Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council 3,362,000 2,962,653 3 3 
			 Oxfordshire County Council 3,329,000 2,898,495 5 5 
			 Peterborough City Council 1,855,000 1,779,199 5 5 
			 Plymouth City Council 3,154,000 1,805,674 13 13 
			 Portsmouth City Council 1,450,000 1,258,905 8 14 
			 Reading Borough Council 920,000 615,960 3 7 
			 Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council 2,069,800 1,103,532 11 17 
			 Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council 2,873,000 2,772,036 5 5 
			 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council 3,832,000 2,347,543 3 3 
			 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 1,338,000 948,645 3 3 
			 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames 678,000 482,290 4 4 
			 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 763,560 625,492 4 67 
			 Rutland County Council 203,000 0 1 1 
			 Salford City Council 3,922,000 3,704,393 11 15 
			 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council 5,526,000 2,673,678 15 27 
			 Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council 3,331,000 3,133,399 14 93 
			 Sheffield City Council 6,010,000 5,716,637 6 11 
			 Shropshire County Council 1,414,000 1,351,952 4 4 
			 Slough Borough Council 1,007,000 910,307 3 3 
			 Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council 1,945,000 761,613 3 3 
			 Somerset County Council 3,062,000 2,686,163 12 15 
			 South Gloucestershire Council 1,261,000 1,261,000 4 4 
			 South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council 3,031,000 2,112,891 5 5 
			 Southampton City Council 2,310,000 2,050,422 4 4 
			 Southend on Sea Borough Council 1,303,000 1,302,999 5 5 
			 St. Helens Council 3,092,000 1,926,063 7 8 
			 Staffordshire County Council 5,839,000 4,870,824 16 25 
			 Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council 2,150,000 2,145,992 12 119 
			 Stockton on Tees Borough Council 2,286,700 2,161,587 5 5 
			 Stoke-on-Trent City Council 4,547,000 3,003,747 5 5 
			 Suffolk County Council 4,701,000 3,598,203 6 6 
			 Sunderland City Council 5,377,000 5,239,753 8 9 
			 Surrey County Council 5,277,000 3,159,477 20 20 
			 Swindon Borough Council 1,363,000 1,080,971 7 7 
			 Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council 3,363,000 2,728,286 4 4 
			 Telford and Wrekin Council 1,847,000 1,623,320 4 4 
			 Thurrock Borough Council 1,619,000 1,201,654 7 7 
			 Torbay Council 1,832,000 1,805,469 5 7 
			 Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council 1,634,000 1,581,318 8 8 
			 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council 3,959,000 3,670,395 7 7 
			 Warrington Borough Council 1,807,000 1,714,330 4 4 
			 Warwickshire County Council 3,358,000 2,724,130 5 5 
			 West Berkshire Council 811,000 789,203 5 6 
			 West Sussex County Council 3,905,000 3,727,169 17 24 
			 Westminster City Council 1,758,000 636,994 8 8 
			 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 4,310,000 4,270,126 15 15 
			 Wiltshire County Council 2,163,000 2,078,933 7 8 
			 Wokingham Borough Council 819,440 602,287 9 9 
			 Wolverhampton City Council 3,963,000 3,509,998 14 46 
			 Worcestershire County Council 3,100,000 2,706,115 5 5 
			 York City Council 818,000 772,891 1 1 
			 Total 495,158,000 385,677,245 1,365 2,349

Departmental ICT

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many  (a) mobile telephones,  (b) personal digital assistants and  (c) laptop computers issued to departmental staff were reported (i) lost, (ii) missing and (iii) stolen since 2001.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Since 2001 staff in my Department have reported:
	PDA's—15 lost and 7stolen
	Laptops—1 lost, 1 missing and 2 stolen.
	My Department does not hold this information on mobile telephones.

Departmental Sick Pay

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of sickness pay to staff within his Department was in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Gerry Sutcliffe: From the 2006-07 financial year, the average cost of sick pay per staff member who have taken sick leave is £468.
	As part of our attendance, health and well being programme for staff we have a range of policies in place these include: Sickness Absence policy, which includes guidance on making reasonable adjustments. We also offer a full range of flexible work patterns to support work-life balance and have health awareness pages on our intranet We have appointed a DCMS board member as the Health and Well-Being Champion. In addition, staff have access to our Employee Assistance Programme (counselling service).

Capita

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid by his Department to Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries in each financial year since 2000; which contracts were awarded by his Department to Capita Group plc in each year since 2000-01 to the most recent available date; what the cost was of each contract; what penalties for default were imposed in contract provisions; what the length was of each contract; whether the contract was advertised; how many companies applied for the contract; how many were short-listed; what criteria were used for choosing a company; what provision was made for renewal without re-tender in each case; and if he will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: The Department does not currently hold individual contract details in the format requested. To do so would attract disproportionate cost. However, a new system will be introduced in April 2008 called SHOWA, which will be able to gather future information of this nature for the Department.
	Details of the amount paid to Capita and its subsidiaries by the Department from 2004 are set out as follows:
	
		
			  £ 
			 2004-05 980,447 
			 2005-06 1,997,939 
			 2006-07 1,865,918 
			 2007 to date 1,460,316 
		
	
	The expenditure relates to payments recorded in the Department's integrated financial information system and credited against Capita Group plc or its subsidiaries. The records used to provide this information only go back as far as the beginning of 2004. To try to retrieve earlier details would attract a disproportionate cost, as this data is archived and not easily accessible.

Cervical Cancer: Screening

Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the take-up rate of cervical screening; and if he will make a statement.

Ann Keen: Women invited to participate in the national health service cervical screening programme need to understand the potential benefits and harms in doing so and to be able to make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to take part in the programme.
	This is why all eligible women receive a national information leaflet on cervical screening, Cervical Screening - The Facts. This leaflet is included with each screening invitation and contains comprehensive and understandable information about cervical screening. It is available at:
	www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/publications/in-04.ntml
	The cancer reform strategy noted concerns about the fall in the number of young women taking up their invitation to be screened. That is why the NHS cancer screening programme have commissioned the Improvement Foundation to undertake work at a local level targeting this age group. The lessons learned from this work, due in 2009, will be shared with strategic health authorities and local screening programmes to develop best practice.
	The NHS cancer screening programmes' press office is developing an information pack to be issued to all local screening programmes and also developing a public relations strategy, including articles in appropriate media publications, posters etc. In addition, Cancer Research UK have commissioned research on this issue, which we will monitor closely and will share the findings.
	Continued local action in this area is also essential and we will continue to monitor levels of cervical screening coverage through the office for national statistics/information centre annual cervical screening statistical bulletin.

NHS: Public Participation

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget was for  (a) community health councils,  (b) each community health council,  (c) patient involvement forums and  (d) each patient involvement forum in the last full financial year of their operation; and what the budget is for (i) local involvement networks and (ii) each local involvement network in the first full financial year of their operation.

Ann Keen: Community Health Councils (CHCs), Patient and Public Involvement Forums (PPIFs) and local involvement networks (LINks) all support a stronger voice for patients and the public. However, they all have different functions, geographical coverage and support infrastructure. Furthermore, LINks differ from CHCs and Forums because they cover social care as well as health services.
	Funds allocated to support CHCs, forums and LINks were distributed through three very different mechanisms—via Department of Health Regional Offices and health authorities for CHCs, via the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) and Forums Support Organisations (FSOs) to Forums and through local authorities (LAs) and hosts for LINks.
	In the case of CHCs and PPIFs, it is not possible to provide exact figures for each CHC and PPIF. However, we can provide an indication of average allocation based on total funding divided by the number of CHCs and PPIFs. We can identify the allocation made available to each LINk, as the funding route is direct from the department to each individual LA.
	
		
			   £/number 
			 Total funding for CHCs in the last full year of operation (2002-03) 23 million 
			 Number of CHCs 184 
			 Average allocation per CMC 125,000 
			   
			 Total funding for PPIFs in the last full year of operation (2007-08) 28 million 
			 Number of PPIFs 398 
			 Average allocation per PPIF 70,300 
			   
			   
			 Total funding for LINks in their first full year of operation (2008-09) 28 million 
			 Number of LINks 150 
			 Actual amount allocated to each LA per LINk for 2008-09 See following table 
		
	
	
		
			  2008-09 
			  LA  £ million 
			 Hartlepool 0.099 
			 Herefordshire 0.119 
			 Isle of Wight Council 0.115 
			 Isles of Scilly 0.061 
			 Kingston upon Hull 0.173 
			 Leicester 0.186 
			 Luton 0.131 
			 Medway 0.136 
			 Middlesbrough 0.122 
			 Milton Keynes 0.129 
			 North East Lincolnshire 0.120 
			 North Lincolnshire 0.114 
			 North Somerset 0.121 
			 Nottingham 0.184 
			 Peterborough 0.122 
			 Plymouth 0.151 
			 Poole 0.103 
			 Portsmouth 0.125 
			 Reading 0.104 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 0.116 
			 Rutland 0.069 
			 Slough 0.104 
			 South Gloucestershire 0.124 
			 Southampton 0.141 
			 Southend-on-Sea 0.123 
			 Stockton-on-Tees 0.126 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 0.163 
			 Swindon 0.112 
			 Telford and The Wrekin 0.119 
			 Wiltshire 0.181 
			 Worcestershire 0.222 
			 Bedfordshire 0.171 
			 Buckinghamshire 0.182 
			 Cambridgeshire 0.219 
			 Cheshire 0.257 
			 Barking and Dagenham 0.147 
			 Barnet 0.182 
			 Bexley 0.131 
			 Brent 0.185 
			 Bromley 0.151 
			 Croydon 0.188 
			 Ealing 0.183 
			 Enfield 0.179 
			 Haringey 0.172 
			 Harrow 0.138 
			 Havering 0.133 
			 Hillingdon 0.147 
			 Hounslow 0.142 
			 Kingston upon Thames 0.102 
			 Merton 0.123 
			 Newham 0.214 
			 Redbridge 0.156 
			 Richmond upon Thames 0.107 
			 Sutton 0.118 
			 Waltham Forest 0.164 
			 Camden 0.176 
			 Greenwich 0.188 
			 Hackney 0.207 
			 Thurrock 0.111 
			 Torbay 0.119 
			 Warrington 0.117 
			 West Berkshire 0.095 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 0.093 
			 Wokingham 0.087 
			 York 0.108 
			 Bath and North East Somerset 0.109 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 0.123 
			 Blackpool 0.126 
			 Bournemouth 0.119 
			 Bracknell Forest 0.086 
			 Brighton and Hove 0.148 
			 Bristol 0.210 
			 Darlington 0.096 
			 Derby 0.150 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 0.158 
			 Halton 0.111 
			 Cornwall 0.252 
			 Cumbria 0.232 
			 Derbyshire 0.314 
			 Devon 0.298 
			 Dorset 0.183 
			 Durham 0.256 
			 East Sussex 0.236 
			 Essex 0.480 
			 Gloucestershire 0.231 
			 Hampshire 0.378 
			 Hertfordshire 0.361 
			 Kent 0.492 
			 Lancashire 0.454 
			 Leicestershire 0.219 
			 Lincolnshire 0.285 
			 Norfolk 0.342 
			 North Yorkshire 0.222 
			 Northamptonshire 0.253 
			 Northumberland 0.165 
			 Nottinghamshire 0.304 
			 Oxfordshire 0.222 
			 Shropshire 0.150 
			 Somerset 0.226 
			 Staffordshire 0.301 
			 Suffolk 0.280 
			 Surrey 0.333 
			 Warwickshire 0.212 
			 West Sussex 0.281 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 0.143 
			 Islington 0.170 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 0.140 
			 Lambeth 0.207 
			 Lewisham 0.197 
			 Southwark 0.211 
			 Tower Hamlets 0.208 
			 Wandsworth 0.169 
			 Westminster 0.174 
			 City of London 0.063 
			 Barnsley 0.152 
			 Bolton 0.166 
			 Bradford 0.259 
			 Bury 0.122 
			 Calderdale 0.130 
			 Coventry 0.178 
			 Doncaster 0.172 
			 Dudley 0.173 
			 Gateshead 0.140 
			 Kirklees 0.202 
			 Knowsley 0.140 
			 North Tyneside 0.134 
			 Oldham 0.151 
			 Rochdale 0.147 
			 Rotherham 0.160 
			 Salford 0.159 
			 Sandwell 0.202 
			 Sefton 0.172 
			 Solihull 0.119 
			 South Tyneside 0.127 
			 St Helens 0.132 
			 Stockport 0.149 
			 Sunderland 0.176 
			 Tameside 0.146 
			 Trafford 0.130 
			 Wakefield 0.182 
			 Walsall 0.170 
			 Wigan 0.175 
			 Wirral 0.200 
			 Wolverhampton 0.169 
			 Birmingham 0.558 
			 Leeds 0.308 
			 Liverpool 0.291 
			 Manchester 0.288 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 0.171 
			 Sheffield 0.263 
			  Note: The remaining £l million, after LA allocations are made, will be used to support national LINks activity.

Migrant Workers: Cambridgeshire

Malcolm Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what her most recent estimate is of the number of migrant workers there were in  (a) Cambridgeshire,  (b) Peterborough and  (c) North East Cambridgeshire constituency in each of the last three years.  [Official Report, 11 March 2008, Vol. 473, c. 2MC.]

Angela Eagle: I have been asked to reply.
	The information request falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	 Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 22 February 2008:
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on what the most recent estimate is of the number of migrant workers in (a) Cambridgeshire, (b) Peterborough and (c) North East Cambridgeshire in each of the last three years. (187207)
	The Office for National Statistics compiles statistics on migrant workers for local areas from the Annual Population Survey (APS). The National Statistics method for estimating the number of migrant workers employed in the UK is routinely based on the number of people at a given time who were born abroad, are of working age (16-64 for men, 16-59 for women), and in employment. This question has been answered on this basis. It means, for example, that some people who are UK nationals will be included in the total of "foreign born" and that people who are working but are above state pension age are not included.
	APS estimates at this detailed level are only available consistent with population estimates published in February and March 2003 and are not comparable with the estimates published in the Labour Market Statistics First Release on 13 February 2008, which are based on latest population estimates.
	The table attached, shows the numbers of working age in employment who were not born in the UK and were resident in the county of Cambridgeshire, Peterborough UA and North East Cambridgeshire constituency, for the twelve month periods ending in June for 2005, 2006, 2007 from the APS. The July to June 2007 APS dataset is the most recent which is currently available. The table also shows the numbers of non-UK born persons as a percentage of all working age in employment, in these areas.
	When interpreting these figures, it is important to bear in mind that the APS is not designed to cover everyone who is present in the UK. The survey may undercount the numbers of people who were born overseas. The reasons are set out in the table footnote.
	As these estimates are for a subset of the population in small geographical areas, they are based on small sample sizes, and are therefore subject to large margins of uncertainty.
	
		
			  Number of migrant workers in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and North East Cambridgeshire in the last three years 
			   Cambridgeshire  Peterborough  North East Cambridgeshire 
			  12 months ending  June each year  Employment  l evel (thousand)( 1)  Non-UK born persons in employment as percentage of all in employment( 2)  Employment l evel (thousand)( 1)  Non-UK born persons in employment as percentage of all in employment( 2)  Employment  l evel (thousand)( 1)  Non-UK born persons in employment as percentage of all in employment( 2) 
			 2005 19 6 5 7 2 4 
			 2006 33 12 7 9 3 6 
			 2007 41 15 12 16 4 9 
			 (1) Includes males aged 16 to 64 and females aged 16 to 59. (2) Denominator for percentage does not include respondents who did not answer the question on country of birth.  Notes: 1. Estimates are subject to sampling variability. 2. It should also be noted that the country of birth question in the APS gives an undercount because: it excludes certain people who have been resident in the UK for less than six months. it excludes students in halls who do not have a UK resident parent. it excludes people in most other types of communal establishments (e.g. hotels, boarding houses, hostels, mobile home sites, etc.). it is grossed to population estimates which exclude migrants staying for less than 12 months. microdata are grossed to population estimates consistent with those published in spring 2003 which are significantly lower than the latest population estimates.  Source: Annual Population Survey (APS), ONS

Departmental Public Relations

Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many external contracts his Department held with public relations companies in each of the last 10 years; and what the total cost of those contracts was.

Douglas Alexander: Nine contracts were awarded by the Department for International Development (DFID) to public relations companies in the last 10 years, at a total cost of £527,645.
	This data has been extracted from readily available information and may not be comprehensive. To undertake an extensive interrogation of records over the last 10 years would incur disproportionate cost.

Misuse of Computers Act 1990

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many  (a) prosecutions and  (b) convictions there have been for unauthorised (i) access to computer material, (ii) access to computer material with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences and (iii) modification of computer material under the Misuse of Computers Act 1990.

Jack Straw: The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for various offences relating to "computer material", in England and Wales for the year 2006 can be found in the following table.
	
		
			  N umber of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for various offences relating to "computer material," in England and Wales for the year 2006( 1, 2) 
			  Statute  Offence description  Prosecuted  Found guilty 
			 Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec 2 Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences 5 4 
			 Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec 3 Unauthorised modification of computer material 13 10 
			 Computer Misuse Act 1990 Sec. 1 Unauthorised access to computer material 4 4 
			 (1) These data are on the principal offence basis.  (2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.   Source:   Court proceedings database held by RDS Office for Criminal Justice Reform - Ministry of Justice

Departmental Computer Software

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the source code copies of core application software used by her Department and its agencies and supplied by third parties are held in escrow.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The following table shows whether the source code copies of core application software used by the Department for Transport and its Agencies, and supplied by third parties, are held in escrow:
	
		
			   Whether or not held in Escrow 
			 DfT (Central) No 
			 DVLA Partial—a number are currently held in Escrow and DVLA are currently working with service providers to provide further items for inclusion as part of an ongoing review. 
			 HA Partial 
			 DSA No 
			 MCA No 
			 VOSA Yes 
			 VGA Nil requirement 
			 GCDA Nil requirement

Eurostar North Pole Depot: Finance

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding from the public purse was spent on the Eurostar North Pole depot.

Tom Harris: North Pole Depot was originally built by European Passenger Services Ltd (EPSL), a subsidiary of British Rail, in 1991-02 for £75 million. The facility was built to service what is now known as the Eurostar train fleet.
	Under the arrangements for HMG to fund the provision of the new Eurostar maintenance depot at Temple Mills, Eurostar (UK) Limited agreed to relinquish its interests in North Pole Depot for zero cost. The depot transfer to BRBR ownership was completed on 31 January 2008.
	The asset transferred from Eurostar (UK) Limited to BRB (Residuary) Limited on 31 January 2008, under the arrangements for providing Eurostar (UK) Limited with a new depot at Temple Mills. This transfer involved no costs to the public purse. BRB (Residuary) Ltd is now responsible for managing all the costs and benefits of North Pole depot.

Honours

Greg Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of the senior Civil Service in her Department have received an honour.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Since New Year 2003, 12 members of staff in the senior civil service in the Department and its agencies have been awarded an honour, of whom four are still serving.

Children

David Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of children were living with  (a) both birth parents,  (b) one birth parent and  (c) no birth parents in each year since 1987, broken down by social class.

Angela Eagle: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	 Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 22 February 2008:
	 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what proportion of children were living with (a) both birth parents, (b) one birth parent and (c) no birth parents in each year since 1987, broken down by social class. (187143)
	This information is only available from the 2001 Census. It is not possible to readily identify whether children are living with their birth parents from other sources.
	The question asks for the proportion of children by the number of birth parents in the family. In the 2001 Census the number of children living with both birth parents can be obtained from the number of children living in couple families that are not stepfamilies plus the number of children living in stepfamilies who are children of both parents. The number of children living with one birth parent can be obtained from the number of children living in couple stepfamilies who are the stepchild of one of the partners plus the number of children living in lone parent families. All other children living in households have been considered to be living with neither birth parent. This group will include children living with a step-parent only and those living with other relatives but not a birth parent.
	Table 1, attached, shows the proportion of dependent children in households in England and Wales by number of birth parents and the NS-SEC of the household reference person, according to the 2001 Census. The table refers to children living in households only, because we cannot provide the requested information for children living in communal establishments. According to the 2001 Census, the number of dependent children in communal establishments in England and Wales was 47,643.
	From 2001 the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) has been used for all official statistics and surveys as a replacement for social class. In some cases, the household reference person may not necessarily be a birth parent of the child.
	Comparable data from the 1991 Census are not available because stepfamilies were not separately identified in 1991. Family data are available on an annual basis for recent years from the General Household Survey (GHS) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS). However, these surveys do not readily identify children in families by the number of birth parents.
	
		
			  Dependent children in households by parent status and NS-SEC of household reference person (HRP)—England and Wales 
			  NS-SEC  Both birth parents (Percentage)  One birth parent (Percentage)  No birth parents (Percentage)  Base 
			 Higher managerial and professional occupations 90 9 1 1,636,093 
			 Lower managerial and professional occupations 80 19 1 2,608,709 
			 Intermediate occupations 59 39 1 776,259 
			 Small employers and own account workers 85 13 2 1,348,021 
			 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 81 17 1 1,237,363 
			 Semi-routine occupations 57 41 2 1,364,120 
			 Routine occupations 68 30 2 1,306,668 
			 Full-time student 30 62 8 118,037 
			 Never worked, long-term unemployed, not classifiable for other reasons 28 67 5 1,269,996 
			 Total dependent children 70 28 2 11,665,266 
			  Notes:   1. Cells in this table have been randomly adjusted to avoid the release of confidential data.  2. "No birth parents" includes children living with grandparents where no parent is present and children living with step-parents only.  3. Children under 16 living with a partner or child are included in the "no birth parents" category.  4. NS-SEC is calculated according to the household reference person (HRP) and is not necessarily that of either birth parent.  5. An error in processing has resulted in under estimation of the numbers of economically inactive people aged 65-74 who had never worked in tables containing these data throughout England and Wales. Users are advised either to restrict analyses of ever worked and NS-SEC to the economically active population and to economically inactive people aged under 65, or to combine the "never worked" and "not classifiable for other reasons" categories when analysing NS-SEC. The latter is the approach adopted by ONS in the production of commissioned tables and has been used in this case.  6. Crown Copyright applies unless otherwise stated, Copyright@ons.gov.uk.   Source:  2001 Census.

Debt Collection: Standards

Bob Russell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who in HM Revenue and Customs is responsible for ensuring compliance with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents by contracted enforcement companies; what compliance checks were undertaken in 2007; and if he will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry for Justice (Maria Eagle) on 21 February 2008,  Official Report, column 965-6W.

Departmental Visits Abroad

Jeremy Browne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  how many overseas visits by officials in his Department took place in each of the last 10 years; which countries were visited; and how much was spent on such visits in each such year;
	(2)  how much his Department spent on travel  (a) within and  (b) outside the UK for officials in each of the last 10 years; and what percentage of his Department's overall expenditure was spent on such travel in each such year.

Angela Eagle: For details of overseas visits I refer to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 25 July 2007,  Official Report, column 1186W. Spending on UK travel in 2006-07 was £506,000. For details of UK travel in earlier years I refer to the answer given by the then Financial Secretary (Mr. Healey) to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on 29 November 2006,  Official Report, column 719W.
	Since 1999, the Government have published on an annual basis a list of all overseas visits by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500, as well as the total cost of all ministerial travel overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. All travel is undertaken in accordance with the "Civil Service Management Code" and the "Ministerial Code".

Income: Equality

Ashok Kumar: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of  (a) the income inequality gap and  (b) changes to this differential since 1997; and what measures he plans to introduce to address income inequalities.

Jane Kennedy: Measures of household income inequality are published annually by DWP in "Households Below Average Income" and by ONS in "The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income".
	The Government have implemented a comprehensive programme to promote employment opportunity for all and a fair society in which everyone shares in rising national prosperity, including the introduction of the new deals, the national minimum wage and tax credits.

National Insurance Fund

Paul Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage increase in the basic state pension could be paid in the years from 2009-10 to 2012-13 by using the National Insurance Fund's excess of receipts over payments projected by the Acting Government Actuary for that period.

Mike O'Brien: I have been asked to reply.
	The National Insurance Fund (NIF) is not just for State Pension expenditure but for other contributory benefits such as incapacity benefit and contribution-based jobseeker's allowance.
	National insurance contributions (NICs) and associated social security benefits operate within the Government's fiscal rules designed to ensure sound public finances and when there is a surplus it is invested in public services. Any surplus of NICs over social security benefits in any one year (the NIF surplus) is not therefore an extra resource available to spend.
	The NIF is maintained under the control and management of HMRC.

Quality of Life

Jo Swinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition of quality of life he uses.

Jane Kennedy: Productivity and employment are the key determinants of growth and therefore of living standards. However, a large volume of other data are also important indicators for a broader measure of quality of life, such as those on crime, working hours, social capital, social demography and health.

Tax Avoidance: Companies

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to reduce the amount of tax revenue lost due to avoidance by large corporations; and if he will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: The Government are committed to tackling avoidance and in recent years has taken a number of steps to identify and close down opportunities for avoidance. For example, they have introduced a Disclosure Regime which requires those designing and selling tax avoidance schemes to provide HM Revenue and Customs with details of those schemes within five days of them being first marketed. On receipt, the schemes are assessed for tax risk and consideration whether an urgent announcement of a legislative fix is needed to prevent extensive use of the scheme.
	Recent Finance Acts have all contained measures to close various loopholes in the tax system used by avoiders, most of these informed to some extent by information from the Disclosure Regime. This year will be no exception. In each of the last four budgets there have been revenue protection measures averaging around £1&frac12; billion a year.
	In addition to these legislative counteractions, HMRC has in place a comprehensive anti-avoidance strategy, published on its website at:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/vision-strategy.htm

Valuation Office: Rightmove

Bob Neill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the public purse has been to date of the contract between HM Revenue and Customs, on behalf of the Valuation Office Agency, and Rightmove.co.uk Plc.

Jane Kennedy: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 20 June 2007,  Official Report, column 1861W. Expenditure in the year 2007-08 will be available in the Valuation Office Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, when published.

Working Tax Credit

Danny Alexander: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  what estimate he has made of the distribution of expenditure via  (a) working tax credit,  (b) child tax credit,  (c) the childcare element of working tax credit and  (d) the disability element of child tax credit, broken down by household income quintile;
	(2)  what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of families eligible for  (a) working tax credit,  (b) child tax credit,  (c) the childcare element of working tax credit and  (d) the disability element of child tax credit in each income quintile.

Jane Kennedy: Estimates of the proportion of households in each income quintile with entitlements to tax credits in 2007-08 and a quintile breakdown of estimated entitlements by value is provided in the following table.
	
		
			   Tax credits 
			  Household income quintile( 1)  Percentage households with entitlements  Percentage total entitlements (value) 
			 1 37 48 
			 2 36 30 
			 3 33 14 
			 4 26 6 
			 5 4 1 
			 (1) Households ranked according to equivalised income after direct taxes and benefits 
		
	
	Entitlements to tax credits are modelled using Family Resources Survey data, and are subject to sampling variation. Estimates are provided for tax credits overall; eligibility for working tax credit increases total tax credit entitlement but does not necessarily mean that a family will receive working tax credit. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the childcare element of working tax credit or the disability element of child tax credit in isolation.

Working Tax Credit: Nottingham

Graham Allen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Nottingham North constituency were in receipt of working families tax credit in the most recent period for which figures are available.

Jane Kennedy: Working Families' Tax Credit was replaced by Child and Working Tax Credits in April 2003.
	Estimates of the number of recipient families of Working Families' Tax Credit in 2001-2002, broken down by constituency, appear in the HMRC quarterly WFTC and DPTC Geographical Analyses. These publications are available on the HMRC website at:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/wftc/wfdptc_ geog.htm
	Estimates for 2005-06 of the number of in-work families with tax credit awards, by constituency, based on final family circumstances and incomes for 2005-06 are published in "Child and Working Tax Credits Statistics Finalised Annual Awards 2005-06. Geographical Analysis." This publication and provisional estimates for the number of in-work families by constituency with tax credit awards as at selected dates in 2006-07 and 2007-08 are available on the HMRC website at:
	http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/cwtc-geog-stats.htm

Departmental Correspondence

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters his Department received in each of the last five years.

Paul Murphy: The total number of letters received in each year from 2003 were as follows:
	
		
			   Number 
			 2003 826 
			 2004 740 
			 2005 722 
			 2006 518 
			 2007 493 
		
	
	This figure does not include Interdepartmental Correspondence, this can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

Housing Benefit: Antisocial Behaviour

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the Answers of 18 February 2008,  Official Report, columns 235-36W, on housing benefit: anti-social behaviour, how many  (a) individuals and  (b) households (i) in each of the nine pilot areas and (ii) in the UK were (A) the subject of an order for possession on grounds of anti-social behaviour and subsequently left the property and (B) unreasonably refused to engage with the help and support offered as specified in a written warning notice while in receipt of housing benefit in the latest period for which figures are available.

James Plaskitt: As part of the sanction process, when a possession order is served on a household, the court clerk sends a copy of the order to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). To date, DWP has not been notified by the court of any relevant orders for possession in the eight pilot areas.
	Information on the numbers of orders for possession on grounds of antisocial behaviour in the UK is not available.

State Retirement Pensions

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment for benchmarking purposes he has made of the provision of state pensions in the UK in comparison with other European countries.

Mike O'Brien: holding answer 6 February 2008
	 Direct comparisons of levels of State Pensions between countries can be misleading, as differences may be due to underlying economic conditions or policy choices, such as different costs faced by pensioners and the presence of other policies targeting the welfare of elderly people.
	In contrast with many other European countries, the UK's policy on retirement income provision envisages the state providing benefits that act as a foundation for private saving, and not the state as being the sole provider. The UK state pension system is also structured differently than that in other European countries, in that it targets spending on those on lower incomes, rather than aiming at providing the same level of generosity to all income groups.
	The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report, "Pensions At A Glance 2007", published on 7 June, confirms that the UK targets the greatest resources on those most in need and that the UK has a very redistributive pension system that is more generous towards people on lower incomes.
	Eurostat data indicate that the median income of UK persons aged 65+ (adjusted for cost of living differences), are much higher than the EU average and is the fifth highest in Europe.
	The OECD also noted that 'changes to the public pension system since 1997 have increased future benefits for low earners', with average pensions for this income group up by seven percentage points, while
	'recent reforms in France, Germany and Japan have cut benefits by around 15-20 percent'.
	The average pension promise in 16 OECD countries studied was cut by 22 per cent. In only two countries—Hungary and the United Kingdom—did pension promises increase on average.
	This Government are committed to further improve this situation. In fact, the latest assessment of the European Commission on UK pension policy, published at the end of January, endorsed our recent pension reforms, stating that
	"these reforms will ensure that recent achievements in reducing pensioner poverty are secure into the future".

Unemployment

Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those classified as workless households were  (a) families with dependants,  (b) two parent households,  (c) lone parent households,  (d) single parent households and  (e) claiming incapacity benefit in the last period for which figures are available.

Stephen Timms: Data on workless households are drawn from the Labour Force Survey. It is not possible to provide data relating to households and individuals on benefits from the Labour Force Survey. The available information is in the table.
	
		
			  Number of working age workless households by type. Great Britain: Quarter 2 (April, May, June) 2007 
			   Thousand 
			 Two parent household with dependent children 293 
			 Lone/single parent household with dependent children 684 
			 Other household with dependent children 11 
			 Total number of workless households with dependent children 989 
			  Notes: 1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Totals may not sum due to rounding. 2. The figures show the number of working-age households with dependent children where no adult works. 3. A working-age household is a household that includes at least one person of working age (a woman aged between 16 and 59 or a man aged between 16 and 64). 4. Workless individuals are those who are either International Labour Organisation unemployed or economically inactive (that is, not in employment). 5. A dependent child is defined as a child aged under 16 or aged under 19 and in full-time education.  Source: ONS Labour Force Survey